271
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Why so much trust in DXO.
« on: April 20, 2012, 10:00:10 AM »
Can any one tell me why we are having this discussion? I don't visit DXO for their test results. How about you?
May 22, 2013, 01:47:44 PM
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
272
Software & Accessories / Re: tripod for travel photography
« on: April 05, 2012, 06:48:24 AM »
@DocSavage: That Sirui tripod may be a real good tip.
I am travelling by plane quite a lot and instead of bringing my tripod I have managed to loan tripods on location, if I really needed one. This Sirui tripod appears to be light enough to bring along.
I would like to read more about experiences using this tripod.
I am travelling by plane quite a lot and instead of bringing my tripod I have managed to loan tripods on location, if I really needed one. This Sirui tripod appears to be light enough to bring along.
I would like to read more about experiences using this tripod.
273
Lenses / Re: Looking for advice.
« on: April 05, 2012, 06:28:08 AM »
I don't know about your budget, but since you already own that nice 135L and you seem not so happy with your 18-55, why don't you add some L primes? Perhaps a 24L or 35L might be a good choice.
If I were you I would hold back buying a standard zoom like the 24-105 until you buy it in a bundle with a 5D Mark III.
If I were you I would hold back buying a standard zoom like the 24-105 until you buy it in a bundle with a 5D Mark III.
274
EOS Bodies / Re: going on vacation...need help...
« on: April 04, 2012, 03:52:56 AM »
Bringing the 24-105mm is an excellent choice. If you are into good food, you will be quick to find non-tourist restaurants, which offer food of excellent quality. Attached is a shot I have taken with my 24-105.
By the way for taking photos of those narrow Italian streets you should bring something significantly wider than 24mm. I suggest either going all out for the 14mm or one of the wide angle zooms 17-40 or 16-35. Any prime in the area around 20mm focal length should also provide nice results. My point here is that 24mm will be a real limitation on the wide end. On a full frame you should be bringing something in the 18mm or 20mm range.
Regarding cleaning tools I have always brought a cleaning cloth on my trips to Italy, but I have rarely needed it. Attaching a battery grip is in my opinion a very good idea, because you may frequently want to frame shots in portrait mode, even for architecture. Another good gadget to bring would be a Gorilla Pod and a wired or remote trigger. You may find this very helpful for night-time long exposure shots, where you may want to be close to the ground for a different look.
By the way for taking photos of those narrow Italian streets you should bring something significantly wider than 24mm. I suggest either going all out for the 14mm or one of the wide angle zooms 17-40 or 16-35. Any prime in the area around 20mm focal length should also provide nice results. My point here is that 24mm will be a real limitation on the wide end. On a full frame you should be bringing something in the 18mm or 20mm range.
Regarding cleaning tools I have always brought a cleaning cloth on my trips to Italy, but I have rarely needed it. Attaching a battery grip is in my opinion a very good idea, because you may frequently want to frame shots in portrait mode, even for architecture. Another good gadget to bring would be a Gorilla Pod and a wired or remote trigger. You may find this very helpful for night-time long exposure shots, where you may want to be close to the ground for a different look.
275
Lenses / Re: Canon 200-400/1.4x vs. 600/4 II
« on: March 29, 2012, 04:54:14 PM »
My choice is buying the 200-400. Quite frankly I don't think a 600m prime would see much use, if I owned one and since the 200-400 so nicely fits the limits of my 70-200/2.8 L, it appears to be made for me. Similar to the original poster I am also thinking to use it for zoo visits or perhaps for safari, which is were this lens should be a brilliant choice given its versatility and focal length range. Of course I must admit that I am not usually shooting birds, only occasionally.
276
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon smarter than we think
« on: March 29, 2012, 04:39:49 PM »
In my experience that is just normal. Your first investment for a new office ritually goes into a coffee machine 
277
Lenses / Re: Patent: Canon EF 2.8x Teleconverter
« on: March 29, 2012, 04:37:25 PM »
1) Putting a teleconverter in front of a lens won't really work for two reasons. First you will not be able to attach it to different sized lenses, for example a 300mm f2.8 and a 300mm f4 lens have significantly different front elements. This alone should be a rather obvious reason. The second part is the optical setup. Here I can only point to the article about lens heritage, to throw some light at the reasons. Let us just say that technically this won't work with multiple different lenses either.
2) Zoom lenses with variable aperture are being built, because they are cheaper to make.
2) Zoom lenses with variable aperture are being built, because they are cheaper to make.
278
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon smarter than we think
« on: March 29, 2012, 04:23:07 PM »
In my humble opinion Canon is doing well in terms of corporate strategy and execution. Lowering prices is often bad for business (would it be any good for yours?), so Canon trying to stick to a higher initial sales price, which is not even higher once you calculate currency effects, is just good business sense. Corporations want to earn money, not to give away new goods for less, which in my opinion would be sign of really bad business sense. Of course the trick is to set the right price for the market. If the pricing would be off, we can expect price corrections to increase sales volume, just to keep those factories occupied and to avoid stockpiling goods in warehouses, which does have a cost attached.
So for all of those who complain about $500 more or less in a camera's price, why don't you just wait? If many do feel like you, the price of the camera body will indeed come down to what you want. You only need some patience. If on the other hand there are so many people buying the camera for the initial asking price, that you are simply not part of the initial buyers group, you can still wait for eventual availability of a used camera or you can just save your money until you have sufficient funds. I don't think these are bad options. I myself am currently waiting, wondering if the price will come down. It doesn't make me question Canon's ability to perform business.
Regarding the 1Dx I believe Canon just wants to avoid errors, so they delay the launch until they feel they are ready.
So for all of those who complain about $500 more or less in a camera's price, why don't you just wait? If many do feel like you, the price of the camera body will indeed come down to what you want. You only need some patience. If on the other hand there are so many people buying the camera for the initial asking price, that you are simply not part of the initial buyers group, you can still wait for eventual availability of a used camera or you can just save your money until you have sufficient funds. I don't think these are bad options. I myself am currently waiting, wondering if the price will come down. It doesn't make me question Canon's ability to perform business.
Regarding the 1Dx I believe Canon just wants to avoid errors, so they delay the launch until they feel they are ready.
279
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Converting from Canon to Sony - Lense equivalents.
« on: March 27, 2012, 09:48:56 AM »
Just out of curiosity I googled "lense" and I even found something. Although Oxford dictionaries do not mention this one, at least it is mentioned in dictionary.com as a variant:
lense
noun
a transparent optical device used to converge or diverge transmitted light and to form images [syn: lens]
It is even mentioned in Wikipedia as a variant spelling, although as a generally not accepted variant.
lense
noun
a transparent optical device used to converge or diverge transmitted light and to form images [syn: lens]
It is even mentioned in Wikipedia as a variant spelling, although as a generally not accepted variant.
280
Lenses / Re: Patent: Canon EF 2.8x Teleconverter
« on: March 27, 2012, 09:35:39 AM »Quote
Unless Canon have found make a teleconverter that opens the aperture wider, I don't see how the teleconverter could multiply the focal length by 2.8 without (relatively) closing the aperture by three stops.
Given that a teleconverter cannot add any light to what it is receiving from the attached lens we end up in a situation that in case this teleconverter patent is eventually transformed into a product, it won't be useable with a lot of lenses, making it fairly limited. Limited usage then requires a high asking price to recover R&D costs, so the overall package makes even less sense compared to using a lens with longer reach and I assume much better image quality.
Can anyone come up with an explanation as to what this patent should be good for?
281
Lenses / Re: Patent: Canon EF 2.8x Teleconverter
« on: March 27, 2012, 08:15:44 AM »
To me this is a really strange thing indeed:
If this teleconverter becomes available I bet it will be usable only with some of the really, really good tele lenses and for anything else it will exaggerate lens errors so much, that pictures become almost unusable.
I truly wonder how this would make sense on the business side?
If this teleconverter becomes available I bet it will be usable only with some of the really, really good tele lenses and for anything else it will exaggerate lens errors so much, that pictures become almost unusable.
I truly wonder how this would make sense on the business side?
282
Lenses / Re: Expensive lenses and "color"; any real basis for gushing praise?
« on: March 26, 2012, 11:26:12 AM »
The link shown explains that lens errors such as chromatic aberration or misalignment may cause a reduction in image quality. Those errors are rather obvious causes for trouble, but in most modern lenses these factors are pretty well controlled. If we assume that given two different lenses both have no such obvious problems, what you are left with are the absorption characteristics and of course pincushion and barrel distortions, but those are not color-related.
This is an area where we have an obvious effect in physics, which does not translate easily into human understanding. People may think that minute differences in transmission characteristics for different wavelengths will not have any appreciable effect on a picture, but yes they do, because our eyes can see it.
Just keep in mind that those differences are subtle.
Imagine you look at two snapshots of a clown holding bright balloons you will see basically the same picture, even if one picture has been taken using high end equipment and the other using an entry level camera with kit lens. Exact color rendition won't have a real effect on what you see. People may say: That clown looked funny, but will anyone comment on the color of the balloons being something special? Probably not.
If you look at some of the really good landscape photos or portraits (avoiding obviously photoshopped ones) you may ask yourself: What did that photographer use? Often enough you will find that the glass used has been pretty good and you won't be able to find similar pictures shot with an entry level kit lens or something simlar.
That is not to say people cannot produce great photos with entry level gear, but these will be different great photos. It depends on the environment and circumstances, if such subtle effects will be meaningful or not.
I hope this helps.
This is an area where we have an obvious effect in physics, which does not translate easily into human understanding. People may think that minute differences in transmission characteristics for different wavelengths will not have any appreciable effect on a picture, but yes they do, because our eyes can see it.
Just keep in mind that those differences are subtle.
Imagine you look at two snapshots of a clown holding bright balloons you will see basically the same picture, even if one picture has been taken using high end equipment and the other using an entry level camera with kit lens. Exact color rendition won't have a real effect on what you see. People may say: That clown looked funny, but will anyone comment on the color of the balloons being something special? Probably not.
If you look at some of the really good landscape photos or portraits (avoiding obviously photoshopped ones) you may ask yourself: What did that photographer use? Often enough you will find that the glass used has been pretty good and you won't be able to find similar pictures shot with an entry level kit lens or something simlar.
That is not to say people cannot produce great photos with entry level gear, but these will be different great photos. It depends on the environment and circumstances, if such subtle effects will be meaningful or not.
I hope this helps.
283
EOS Bodies / Re: Will the 5d3 be hard to find in a month?
« on: March 26, 2012, 09:10:41 AM »
Maybe, maybe not.
Given the initial hickups found in raw processing software (see http://www.the-digital-picture.com/) and some configuration issues discussed here on the forum you may actually want to sit back and wait.
While others are getting worked up on current issues you can also wait for all this to be sorted out. As soon as the software has been fixed and perhaps some configuration issues have been sorted out, you can buy the camera - hopefully even for a somewhat reduced price. At least this is what I am doing.
Given the initial hickups found in raw processing software (see http://www.the-digital-picture.com/) and some configuration issues discussed here on the forum you may actually want to sit back and wait.
While others are getting worked up on current issues you can also wait for all this to be sorted out. As soon as the software has been fixed and perhaps some configuration issues have been sorted out, you can buy the camera - hopefully even for a somewhat reduced price. At least this is what I am doing.
284
Lenses / Re: Expensive lenses and "color"; any real basis for gushing praise?
« on: March 26, 2012, 08:38:34 AM »
I believe it is necessary to avoid oversimplification here. As Neuroanatomist has pointed out there is always some absorption leading to a loss of color fidelity based on the materials used in any given lens, which is the key to understanding what is actually going on. Here's an article on the subject for further reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_%28electromagnetic_radiation%29
We are using different lenses, which have different properties as to how they affect light (= electromagnetic radiation visible to the human eye) passing through them. In general we may assume/hope that more expensive lenses offer better images, because the more expensive material used in them has better characteristics for providing what appears to be "better" images.
Now what is the effect for a photographer?
Using some of the most highly prized lenses (as in most praise, not as in most costly) you will find that you can take shots that look similar to what you have seen, while with worse lenses you will end up with what is usually described as a flat look. Somehow, something is missing and although you look at what may pass as an adequate image of the scenery, you are missing something. Of course you can't point out that some of the wavelengths have been affected adversely by your lens, because this would be too blunt an effect, but you will see the effect nonetheless.
It is important to note that you cannot fully compensate for such effects in post-processing, because the software you use will never know just exactly what and how much of what has been lost due to the lens. Adding colour in post-processing can only compensate for a more general effect, such as for example a sky not blue enough or less vibrant green leaves compared to what you remember. This will enable you to make general corrections, but you will not be able to fully recompose the exact mood of the scenery as you have seen it before. Granted some post-processing artists may come very close.
I just think about the time lost in post-processing as opposed to time spent actually taking pictures. You decide what is preferable to you. Although I am quite happy with Adobe Lightroom I rather take pictures
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_%28electromagnetic_radiation%29
We are using different lenses, which have different properties as to how they affect light (= electromagnetic radiation visible to the human eye) passing through them. In general we may assume/hope that more expensive lenses offer better images, because the more expensive material used in them has better characteristics for providing what appears to be "better" images.
Now what is the effect for a photographer?
Using some of the most highly prized lenses (as in most praise, not as in most costly) you will find that you can take shots that look similar to what you have seen, while with worse lenses you will end up with what is usually described as a flat look. Somehow, something is missing and although you look at what may pass as an adequate image of the scenery, you are missing something. Of course you can't point out that some of the wavelengths have been affected adversely by your lens, because this would be too blunt an effect, but you will see the effect nonetheless.
It is important to note that you cannot fully compensate for such effects in post-processing, because the software you use will never know just exactly what and how much of what has been lost due to the lens. Adding colour in post-processing can only compensate for a more general effect, such as for example a sky not blue enough or less vibrant green leaves compared to what you remember. This will enable you to make general corrections, but you will not be able to fully recompose the exact mood of the scenery as you have seen it before. Granted some post-processing artists may come very close.
I just think about the time lost in post-processing as opposed to time spent actually taking pictures. You decide what is preferable to you. Although I am quite happy with Adobe Lightroom I rather take pictures
.
285
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Fuzzy 7D photo after upload to Flickr
« on: March 25, 2012, 09:43:31 AM »
I don't know if this applies to you, but the effect you describe may be something like the following:
When viewing an original photo and a downsized version on a high resultion screen it is not unusual that the downsized version will look somewhat worse. This is an effect due to losing detailed information in the image, but it is only visible, if the image is presented larger than the target size of the downsized version.
You can verify this easily by using a size like 800x530 for an image and then you compare it on your viewer presenting the image to use screen estate equivalent to more pixels than the picture size. You will see that your viewer will render the image differently than the original, because the viewer will try to adapt your picture to the available screen estate, thus making it appear fuzzy. The downsized picture won't look fuzzy once viewer in smaller size.
When viewing an original photo and a downsized version on a high resultion screen it is not unusual that the downsized version will look somewhat worse. This is an effect due to losing detailed information in the image, but it is only visible, if the image is presented larger than the target size of the downsized version.
You can verify this easily by using a size like 800x530 for an image and then you compare it on your viewer presenting the image to use screen estate equivalent to more pixels than the picture size. You will see that your viewer will render the image differently than the original, because the viewer will try to adapt your picture to the available screen estate, thus making it appear fuzzy. The downsized picture won't look fuzzy once viewer in smaller size.